Uncle Ron wrote:A little research will show these numbers to be in the ballpark of accuracy.
The math used is fairly basic: maximum product output per square foot; energy (lumen) required per square foot; Kilowatt consumption rate per 1000W lamp; cost per Kilowatt; amount of coal/gas/oil/wind/water/etc... required to produce one Kilowatt; 17,000 metric tons of product; etc...
As stated in the article, the author did not take into account the resources expended in producing the various growing materials required, ie... flower pots (containers), nutrients and fertilizers (and their containers), exhaust fans, assorted cables and duct, etc.... All of these items require the expenditure of resources, ie... energy, this is no great revelation.
Bottom line, we can use this information to our benefit by looking at ways to lessen our carbon footprint, while others will add this to their argument against cannabis.
Happy global warming... not!
Excellent points. A lot of people decry evil energy companies, or nuclear power, but when it comes down to it, the ones USING power are us. The Internet and all the related infrastructures (mobile networks, etc) are the fasted growing consumption of energy. The rate of new data centers being built is astounding and they are gross users of power. Yes, alternatives are being used and data centers are 10x more efficient than a decade ago....but every single post, click or email you send uses power, from your PC, to the network, data center, etc. We all need to reduce our power consumption, not simply say 'no nukes'.
Very, very few agricultural products that I know are grown under lights. Inside, yes, but under lights, its mostly weed. There is no way that is carbon neutral.
Why are these not singled out as a 'cause of global warming' 
